review

review is a command for Claude Code from kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge. It costs 11 tokens per session (1,143 once invoked), scanned A, a copy of review, Apache-2.0.

A read-only command that runs a Grok Build code review on the current Git changes or a chosen branch comparison.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review staged, unstaged, untracked, or branch-based changes and return the review findings.
Why use it?
It checks proposed work without changing files, so you can get review results while keeping the code untouched.

Command for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: names the AskUserQuestion tool; mentions Claude Code.

Runs only inside its plugin — its command needs a path that Claude Code sets for a plugin’s own hooks and for nothing else. Install the plugin, not this.

Part of the grok-build plugin — 3 skills, 7 commands, 1 agent, 2 hooks shipped together

Good fit Use it to review staged, unstaged, untracked, or branch-based changes and return the review findings.

Compare 6 commands from other repositories ↓
Install

Getting it into your agent

This one installs as part of its plugin. Adding the marketplace and installing the plugin brings it with everything else the plugin ships.

Claude Code
/plugin marketplace add kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge
Claude Code
/plugin install grok-build

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install grok-build, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 3 skills, 7 commands, 1 agent, 2 hooks.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/commands/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/commands/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/commands/kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge/review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 11 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 1,143 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe.
Origin 89% copy Near-identical to another mod in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5.1 $0.00011 $0.01143
Opus 5 $0.00005 $0.00571
Sonnet 5 $0.00002 $0.00229
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00114

Measured 8d ago against content hash 6c2cb7da192a, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-08, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 8d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

Origin

This is a copy

89% identical to review — 18 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.

plugins/grok-build/commands/review.md · 67 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 67 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Run a Grok Build review through the plugin bridge (read-only write barrier: --no-plan, --sandbox read-only, disallowed write tools, and deny rules — not plan mode).

Raw slash-command arguments: $ARGUMENTS

Core constraint:

  • This command is review-only.
  • Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
  • Your only job is to run the review and return Grok's output verbatim to the user.

Execution mode rules:

  • If the raw arguments include --wait, do not ask. Run the review in the foreground.
  • If the raw arguments include --background, do not ask. Run via the bridge background path (short Claude enqueue only).
  • Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
    • For working-tree review, start with git status --short --untracked-files=all.
    • For working-tree review, also inspect both git diff --shortstat --cached and git diff --shortstat.
    • For base-branch review, use git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD.
    • Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work even when git diff --shortstat is empty.
    • Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant working-tree status is empty or the explicit branch diff is empty.
    • Recommend waiting only when the review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
    • In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
    • When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
  • Then use AskUserQuestion exactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with (Recommended):
    • Wait for results
    • Run in background

Argument handling:

  • Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
  • Do not strip --wait or --background yourself.
  • Do not add extra review instructions or rewrite the user's intent.
  • --model, --effort, --timeout-ms, --max-turns, --base, and --scope are runtime-selection flags. Preserve them for the bridge call; do not treat them as review focus text.
  • Leave --model and --effort unset unless the user explicitly asks for them. Accepted effort values: low, medium, high, xhigh — measured against the CLI rather than copied from its binary, which lists three more that the flag refuses.
  • The bridge script parses --wait and --background. Bridge --background owns the long-running process group (detached run-worker + grok agent). Claude Code's Bash(..., run_in_background: true) is only for the short enqueue call, not the long review process.
  • If both --background and --wait are present, --wait wins (foreground).
  • Optional trailing positionals are focus text and are joined into the review prompt. /grok-build:review does not support staged-only or unstaged-only review scopes.
  • Put every flag BEFORE the focus text. Option parsing stops at the first focus word, so a flag placed after it is read as part of the text — deliberately, because focus text is prose about code and may legitimately contain --json or --base.
  • Exit codes and failureCode (including empty-output no-deliverable) are documented in the plugin README; return stdout/stderr unchanged on failure.
  • If the user needs a tougher design challenge pass, they should use /grok-build:critique.

Foreground flow:

  • Run:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/grok-bridge.mjs" review "$ARGUMENTS"
  • Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is.
  • Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it.
  • Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output.

Background flow:

  • Prefer the bridge's own detached worker so stop owns a stable process group. Ensure the forwarded arguments include --background (add it if the user chose background and did not already pass the flag).
  • Launch with Bash (Claude may still use run_in_background: true for the short enqueue call; the long-running work is the bridge run-worker):
Bash({
  command: `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/grok-bridge.mjs" review --background "$ARGUMENTS"`,
  description: "Grok Build review",
  run_in_background: true
})
  • Do not call BashOutput or wait for completion in this turn.
  • After launching the command, tell the user: "Grok Build review started in the background. Check /grok-build:runs for progress. Stop with /grok-build:stop."

Read the full file on GitHub · 67 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 8d ago First seen · 67 lines · 11 tokens per session scan A 6c2cb7da192a

Subscribe to this mod's changes

review is a command published in the GitHub repository kai-wedekind/claude-code-grok-bridge (2 stars, last pushed 16d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 11 tokens to every session and 1,143 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 89% identical to review, differing in 18 lines, and is treated as a copy.